Jump to content

My cache is encouraging trespassing


Recommended Posts

I own a cache called "Height Matters to the Elves". The whole point of the cache is figuring out how to gain safe and legal access to the cache, because of several terrain barriers. The cache is hidden on public property in some bushes along a rails to trails path. On the opposite side of the paved trail, about 130 feet from the cache, there is a fence which separates the rail trail from the right of way of an active railroad. On the far side of the tracks there's a large city park with lots of caches.

 

I intended the tracks and fence to be one of the barriers that would force people to discover a little-known road that leads to the parking lot for the rail trail. But what's been happening is that people find the caches in the nearby park, see mine on their screen as "next nearest," and hike over to it in a beeline. This involves descending a very steep slope, then jumping the fence to trespass across the railroad right of way.

 

I do not want my cache to cause problems or to give geocaching a bad name if there's ever a problem on the railroad property. But I risk this if I keep the cache active. If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

 

What would you do if you owned this cache?

 

1. Archive the cache.

2. Delete the most recent log, citing the warning note I posted to the page a few months earlier.

3. Add a rule saying that future logs mentioning crossing the tracks will be deleted. (I've never deleted a log.)

4. Edit the cache page to say that there is no need to trespass on railroad property.

5. Ask the trespassers to edit their logs.

6. Quit worrying about people who choose to break the law when they don't need to.

 

Or, some combination of the above, or something different.

Link to comment

I understand your concern. If it was me, I'd archive the cache, and set up a new multi with the final in approximately the same spot as your cache sits today. I'd use the first stage of the multi to 'force' people to approach the cache from the desired direction.

 

If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

How would archiving the cache penalize those that have already found it? :)

Link to comment
If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

How would archiving the cache penalize those that have already found it? :)

Sorry, I had a bit of verb tense vagueness there. I meant that archiving the cache would penalize future seekers who were in the same category as the many past seekers who found the cache legally by figuring out the correct access.

Link to comment

I own a cache called "Height Matters to the Elves". The whole point of the cache is figuring out how to gain safe and legal access to the cache, because of several terrain barriers. The cache is hidden on public property in some bushes along a rails to trails path. On the opposite side of the paved trail, about 130 feet from the cache, there is a fence which separates the rail trail from the right of way of an active railroad. On the far side of the tracks there's a large city park with lots of caches.

 

I intended the tracks and fence to be one of the barriers that would force people to discover a little-known road that leads to the parking lot for the rail trail. But what's been happening is that people find the caches in the nearby park, see mine on their screen as "next nearest," and hike over to it in a beeline. This involves descending a very steep slope, then jumping the fence to trespass across the railroad right of way.

 

I do not want my cache to cause problems or to give geocaching a bad name if there's ever a problem on the railroad property. But I risk this if I keep the cache active. If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

 

What would you do if you owned this cache?

 

1. Archive the cache.

2. Delete the most recent log, citing the warning note I posted to the page a few months earlier.

3. Add a rule saying that future logs mentioning crossing the tracks will be deleted. (I've never deleted a log.)

4. Edit the cache page to say that there is no need to trespass on railroad property.

5. Ask the trespassers to edit their logs.

6. Quit worrying about people who choose to break the law when they don't need to.

 

Or, some combination of the above, or something different.

I suggest that you do what I do when I face similar potential/actual problems with some of my extreme caches; Snoogans and owners of other extreme caches have done the same thing for their extreme caches which face similar hazards. Here goes:

For the primary cache waypoint coordinates listed on the cache listing page (and downloaded in PQs), list only coordinates a suggested nearby parking area. Then, in the text on the cache listing page, state LOUDLY and CLEARLY that the posted waypoint coordinates are ONLY for suggested parking, and if they wish to garner the ACTUAL waypoint coordinates for the cache, they will need to read the entire text of the long description, as the actual coordinates are buried in that text in plain-English format. And then, in the text on the page, be sure to prominently mention the various risks of trespassing, and offer advice on what to do and what not to do in reaching the cache, and then, finally, give them the coordinates in plain English. This automatically eliminates from the prospective find pool those who cannot and will not take the time and care to read the cache listing page, and automatically eliminates those who simply and blindly download waypoint coordinates using a PQ without reading descriptions.

Link to comment
If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

How would archiving the cache penalize those that have already found it? :)

Sorry, I had a bit of verb tense vagueness there. I meant that archiving the cache would penalize future seekers who were in the same category as the many past seekers who found the cache legally by figuring out the correct access.

Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I just went through the logs on your cache page. Looks like a great cache, and your intentions seem clear enough to me. But it's also pretty clear that people just aren't getting the message (or are choosing to ignore the message).

Link to comment

People will still do it, regardless of whether you put a disclaimer on the page or not. I say we archive any cache that has the potential of ever being dangerous or is anywhere near private property, because someone could possibly accidentally trespass. Let's only allow caches that are placed in well cushioned public spaces, lest someone may poke their eye out.

Link to comment

ahhh the joys of bulk downloads, paperless & go caching. You could hand it to then and provide the parking/entrance area. I'd stick to your guns and follow 3, 4 & 5 delete & re-log. It seems that a majority of the folks were playing by the rules and even left when they found that they could not get to the final.

 

I assume all responsibility for my actions when I'm out in the field but there are some things that just do not need mentioned when logging a cache.

Link to comment

7. Other.

 

Add a "gas saver" cache near the entrance to the rail trail. Mention in the existing cache that "Finding one of my other caches will help you find safe and legal access to this cache!" Mentioning the fact that railroad property is a really bad place to trespass might be a good idea, too.

 

If you don't like the "gas saver" idea, archive the existing cache, replace it with a new cache: a multi that starts at the trail head.

#4 but you know certain cachers will still do it the other way
There was a recent discussion about trespassing for a cache & a lot of people we saying things like "What if I just download the coordinates and don't see your listing? You can't blame me for not knowing the park was closed!" :) Frankly, I think that's a pretty sad statement showing how in today's society everything is always someone else's fault, but it is reason enough to say that simply using #4 is not enough.
Link to comment
I'd stick to your guns and follow 3, 4 & 5 delete & re-log.
I'd agree with #5, for 2 reasons. First, another cacher may be emboldened to try the trespassing route if they see logs of others who have done it. Also, a railroad representative may read these logs & try to take some action (or at least get really ticked off).

 

The problem with #3 (logs mentioning crossing the tracks will be deleted) is that it'll just encourage logs saying

TNLNSL TFTC
Link to comment

I'm afraid I'd have to vote for archival. As long as the cache is there, no matter what you put on the description, some folks are going to ignore both your intentions and the principles of responsible caching and take whatever route will get them to it the quickest.

 

If you still want a cache there, I would suggest redesigning it as a multi which would somehow force seekers to take the correct route. But even at that (even if it's made a mystery/puzzle), once the final coords make it out to the public domain, some folks will still bypass your best-laid plans and make a beeline straight to the final by the quickest possible means.

Link to comment

I don't know the laws in your state, but in some states if you are simply crossing RR tracks and not remaining on the ROW you aren't considered to be trespassing.

 

Anyway, I'd opt for #7 and make it a multi that forces searchers to come the way you want them to.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Hmmm.... I'd have to say that its people's own fault if they tresspass. Yes put a warning on the cache page but ultimatly its the cachers responsiblity to not break any laws. The same thing goes for all other laws in the USA, ignorance is no excuse.

 

I once tresspassed in private property to get to a cache. I was new at it and assumed that it was a cacher's field. I had not read the cache page and learned that it was on a public trail behind the property. It was no ones fault but mine that I did that and I had to deal with the concequences. (questioning by property owner, having the police called and putting myself at risk from the property owner's rotwiellers!) I learned from that and will never again seek after a cache without being certian that I'm getting to it legally.

 

Personal responsibility is what I believe.

Edited by His_little_lamb
Link to comment

I go with the idea of archiving this cache and replacing it with a multi that begins in the parking area along the correct approach.

 

In fact I had to do exactly that with my first cache. Though the cache is easily accessible from the culdesac at the end of my street, the neighbors who live down there are VERY paranoid about folks parking in "their" culdesac. In fairness, there had been a good bit of teenage shenanigans down there, so they were perhaps justified in their wariness.

 

Anyway, my solution was to archive the orginal, and replace it with a multi that starts people of in the parking lot of a nearby public pool. The final is in exactly the same spot, but the neighbors are cool with it because no one parks in their culdesac. And, there's no way for anyone to take a short cut, because the coordinates for the final aren't available unless you start in the right place.

Edited by EEeee!
Link to comment

My vote is for 4/5. I did notice that there is zero mention of trespassing issues, on your cache page. I think most of your problems could be resolved had you mentioned these issues from the beginning. Even with ample warnings, you won't be able stop stupid people from breaking the law.

Link to comment

TallJohn, your question about commercial offsite game - that would be the Coin Quests - particularly in the first year, when cachers were told to mention the coin quest game in their logs.

 

I'd go with #4. Have, in fact, already done something similar with a hide of mine.

 

Later I also added parking coords, but the concern was different. Trespassing through a private small farm. I just couldn't stand that cachers would annoy that private individual, so I took them by the hand and lead them to the cache. Sigh.

Link to comment

I agree with PrimeSuspect. Contact your local reviewer. I would tell him I want the cache placed right next to the railroad tracks. If people are gonna tresspass, you might as well make it easy for them. :):)

 

I would really go for #4. Bold text on the cache page, that there is only ONE possible, LEGAL, CORRECT way to access the cache. If people still cross the tracks, I would tattle on them to the local reviewer, and have him take action against the cachers, maybe by banning them...I know your local reviewer can be a real jerk!...LOL

 

Seriously, dont archive it. If you archive it just because SOME people cant READ and play by the rules, what is the point in even placing a large percentage of the caches that are, or will be placed in the future. If we start archiving, or not placing caches because of a few bad apples, then we're severly limiting the game.

Link to comment

I've thought about this sort of thing in the past wondering what I were to happen with one of our caches especially a few months ago when we were going to check out a place to hide a cache that seems to have really interesting local history but could find no legal access.

 

I would say clearly on the cache page that you shouldn't cross the railroad tracks because it's trespassing and probably dangerous. Then I would also ask the trespassers to edit their logs or I'd have to delete it.

Link to comment

We have a couple of hides where we simply guide cachers to the container (or sort of) since the afformentioned cacher might otherwise choose to freelance and that might not be the wisest choice. Never the less we see logs from cachers who decide to take the "short cut" and ignore our directions. Is it our fault (responsibility) if we tell someone there is a cool area to check out and they choose to go there via a route that is clearly stated as off limits? I don't hink so, but it would be better if everyone playing this game paid attention.

Link to comment
I like the CTD idea of a multi...other than that, I'd archive. I had a few caches which were located near roads bordering the fee park. Some cachers were parking on the side of the road and trespassing, so I archived. Better to do this to keep the land owners happy than to have the caches.
I also like this idea since it will get people follow the path you want them to take.
Link to comment

No matter what you put on the cache page, there will be people that don't bother to read it. People are like sheep. They follow the path of least resistance, and they deepen the path. The only way to force them to go where you want them to go, is to archive it, and relist as a multi, with the first stage near the parking lot that you want them to use. I like multis, anyway. Like getting two caches for one price!

Link to comment

Since the problem is bee lining from the park, would it be possible to get with those cache owners and either ask them to put a warning about not going straight to yours, or asking permission to put a warning in? And warning may be too harsh of a word, but hey, it's early! :rolleyes:

Other than that, I'm with changing it to a multi or mystery.

JM.02W

PP4X4

Link to comment

Apparently a fence is not a significant enough of a barrier to discourage folks. We had a cache, a traditional, that had very clear instructions and restrictions. Unfortunately, some choose to read and then promptly ignore the instructions thus jeopardizing the hide and my relationship with the land stewards.

 

I understand you wanting to make the cache a traditional because you'd get more visits. The problem is traditionals are targeted by folks who a bit more focused on simply getting as many caches as possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

I think you have to make a decision first concerning how you want to approach the hunt. If you're still wanting to have a lot of visits and the obtuse challenge, then admonishes on trespassing is about the only way to go.

 

However, if the issue of trespassing in more important than getting the most visits then I agree with PS, sort of. If it were me, I'd archive the present listing and create a new one with the same feel, but as a puzzle. I'd make the bogus coords somewhere convenience in the park--to go with the flow, so to speak--and maybe even hide a hint there.

 

One way to do this without the finder simply reading through the descriptions and changing the coords, say, in GSAK, is have them research the rail trail. You could have a link to a Google map with a pushpin on some random spot on the trail and say that they have to access the marked trail. Then have them find a certain described object along the trail, maybe one of two if the trail is open on two ends. Have the objects vague enough so they can't Google the object, yet unique enough so when they access the trail it stands out and there is no doubt there is this only one object. You then walk them--via letterbox-style clues or whatever as you know you must not put coords in the description unless you risk folks shortcutting the hunt--to the last set of coordinates which in turn leads to the final.

 

Something like the above would be enough leading folks by the nose to greatly reduce the risk of trespassing yet leave plenty of the hunt for the seeker to figure out for themselves and thus still keep the general spirit of the hunt.

 

One advantage this scheme has over previously mentioned schemes earlier in this thread is something I've already touched on. A puzzle that is armchair solvable pretty much turns it into a traditional after it is solved. Yes, it does force the finder to read the entire description, but will they remember the restrictions when that cache is number 37 of 56 for the day? But, with a my scheme, or a variant of same, the important element is the coords are only revealed after the seeker is on the "right" side of the tracks.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
I suggest that you do what I do when I face similar potential/actual problems with some of my extreme caches; Snoogans and owners of other extreme caches have done the same thing for their extreme caches which face similar hazards. Here goes:

For the primary cache waypoint coordinates listed on the cache listing page (and downloaded in PQs), list only coordinates a suggested nearby parking area. Then, in the text on the cache listing page, state LOUDLY and CLEARLY that the posted waypoint coordinates are ONLY for suggested parking, and if they wish to garner the ACTUAL waypoint coordinates for the cache, they will need to read the entire text of the long description, as the actual coordinates are buried in that text in plain-English format. And then, in the text on the page, be sure to prominently mention the various risks of trespassing, and offer advice on what to do and what not to do in reaching the cache, and then, finally, give them the coordinates in plain English. This automatically eliminates from the prospective find pool those who cannot and will not take the time and care to read the cache listing page, and automatically eliminates those who simply and blindly download waypoint coordinates using a PQ without reading descriptions.

 

He wouldn't do that with a traditional, he knows his reviewer would archive it right off. (Heck, if I saw it on a traditional, I would post the SBA)! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Perhaps all caches should be listed as Unknown/Mystery so that people will read the cache page. Some cachers think that its a sign of geocaching prowess to hunt traditional caches with no more than the coordinates in their GPS. If they come to a barrier, instead of figuring out where they should've have started, since they haven't read the cache page to find out, they might tresspass on railroad tracks. Your cache is not encouraging tresspassing. It is a bunch of irresponsible, arrogant, people who think that they are somehow immune from following rules and that have no need to read either the cache page or the no tresspassing signs. If you can't read - or don't want to read - then don't geocache. :rolleyes:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Hmmm. That's a good question. I'd ask a lawyer. :rolleyes:

<_< If I knew a competent one, I would ask him! :rolleyes:

:unsure: Aren't you a law....ahh nevermind...

 

Ask your reviewer to have it changed to a puzzle/mystery, in order to force people to read the cache page.

My reviewer is an inflexible rules hound who would tell me that changing cache types would mess up the history of the cache, and that I'd have to start over with a new "?" cache.

Hey, wait! Aren't you a... <_<

 

Anyway, I'd go with 4/5 as well...might also be worth placing in a dabble of 2 asking them to relog/edit...

Link to comment

...Or, some combination of the above, or something different.

 

Your cache, your call, but since you asked.

 

I'd change the cache so the listed coordinates are the point at which I want them to start hoofing it. In the cache description I would put the real coordinates.

 

Then when they see "nearest" it's the start point. They go there, scratch their heads and log a DNF. If they figure out to read the cache then they can see "oh" I go to another spot from here" and then they will do it right, or at least have the best odds of doing it right.

 

There are nuances that you know about when it comes to your cache that will tell you if this is viable or not.

 

Deleting logs that mention trespassing? Maybe that's a good idea. I'd point out in the description that any logs that mention tresspassing could be use as a basis for prosecution by the RR and suggest they may want to do the right thing. You may have better luck with your logs as well after taht.

Link to comment

I own a cache called "Height Matters to the Elves". The whole point of the cache is figuring out how to gain safe and legal access to the cache, because of several terrain barriers. The cache is hidden on public property in some bushes along a rails to trails path. On the opposite side of the paved trail, about 130 feet from the cache, there is a fence which separates the rail trail from the right of way of an active railroad. On the far side of the tracks there's a large city park with lots of caches.

 

I intended the tracks and fence to be one of the barriers that would force people to discover a little-known road that leads to the parking lot for the rail trail. But what's been happening is that people find the caches in the nearby park, see mine on their screen as "next nearest," and hike over to it in a beeline. This involves descending a very steep slope, then jumping the fence to trespass across the railroad right of way.

 

I do not want my cache to cause problems or to give geocaching a bad name if there's ever a problem on the railroad property. But I risk this if I keep the cache active. If I archive the cache, I penalize people who have enjoyed the cache after taking the time to research the approach and discover the rail trail.

 

What would you do if you owned this cache?

 

1. Archive the cache.

2. Delete the most recent log, citing the warning note I posted to the page a few months earlier.

3. Add a rule saying that future logs mentioning crossing the tracks will be deleted. (I've never deleted a log.)

4. Edit the cache page to say that there is no need to trespass on railroad property.

5. Ask the trespassers to edit their logs.

6. Quit worrying about people who choose to break the law when they don't need to.

 

Or, some combination of the above, or something different.

I suggest that you do what I do when I face similar potential/actual problems with some of my extreme caches; Snoogans and owners of other extreme caches have done the same thing for their extreme caches which face similar hazards. Here goes:

For the primary cache waypoint coordinates listed on the cache listing page (and downloaded in PQs), list only coordinates a suggested nearby parking area. Then, in the text on the cache listing page, state LOUDLY and CLEARLY that the posted waypoint coordinates are ONLY for suggested parking, and if they wish to garner the ACTUAL waypoint coordinates for the cache, they will need to read the entire text of the long description, as the actual coordinates are buried in that text in plain-English format. And then, in the text on the page, be sure to prominently mention the various risks of trespassing, and offer advice on what to do and what not to do in reaching the cache, and then, finally, give them the coordinates in plain English. This automatically eliminates from the prospective find pool those who cannot and will not take the time and care to read the cache listing page, and automatically eliminates those who simply and blindly download waypoint coordinates using a PQ without reading descriptions.

 

I believe then this would require the listing be submitted as either a multi or a mystery/unknown because of the fact that the cache is not at the published coordinates?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...